U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 14B— SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— INVESTMENT DIVISION PROGRAMS › Part Part A— Small Business Investment Companies

15 U.S.C. § 687c

Injunctions and other orders

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Grounds; jurisdiction of court

Whenever, in the judgment of the Administration, a licensee or any other person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any provision of this chapter, or of any rule or regulation under this chapter, or of any order issued under this chapter, the Administration may make application to the proper district court of the United States or a United States court of any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for an order enjoining such acts or practices, or for an order enforcing compliance with such provision, rule, regulation, or order, and such courts shall have jurisdiction of such actions and, upon a showing by the Administration that such licensee or other person has engaged or is about to engage in any such acts or practices, a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order, shall be granted without bond.

(b) Equity jurisdiction of licensee and assets thereof

In any such proceeding the court as a court of equity may, to such extent as it deems necessary, take exclusive jurisdiction of the licensee or licensees and the assets thereof, wherever located; and the court shall have jurisdiction in any such proceeding to appoint a trustee or receiver to hold or administer under the direction of the court the assets so possessed.

(c) Trusteeship or receivership over licensee

The Administration shall have authority to act as trustee or receiver of the licensee. Upon request by the Administration, the court may appoint the Administration to act in such capacity unless the court deems such appointment inequitable or otherwise inappropriate by reason of the special circumstances involved.

(Pub. L. 85–699, title III, § 311, as added Pub. L. 87–341, § 9, Oct. 3, 1961, 75 Stat. 755; amended Pub. L. 89–779, § 6, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1360; Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(15)(C), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3358.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For definition of “this chapter”, referred to in subsec. (a), see References in Text note set out under section 661 of this title.

Amendments

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–620 struck out provision that the proceedings in such a case had to be made a preferred cause and had to be expedited in every way.

1966—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 89–779 added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–620 not applicable to cases pending on Nov. 8, 1984, see section 403 of Pub. L. 98–620, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1657 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases, 1965–2020 · leading case: United States v. Fairway Capital Corp., 483 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Fairway Capital Corp., 483 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “Here, the importance of the Territorial Court’s quasi in rem jurisdiction is diminished by the fact that 15 U.S.C. § 687c(b) gives a district court “exclusive jurisdiction” over the property of an SBA receivership estate.”
United States v. Acorn Tech. Fund, L.P. Leonard Barrack & Lynne Barrack, 429 F.3d 438 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “The District Court appointed the SBA receiver on January 17, 2003, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 687c. As part of the receivership order, the District Court imposed a stay on all civil litigation “involving Acorn, the Receiver, or any of Acorn’s past or present officers,…”
United States v. Fairway Capital Corp., 433 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.R.I. 2006). · cites it 3× “This Court, by its March 13, 2000 Order (the “Receivership Order”) issued pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 687c, established the Fairway Receivership Estate (the “Fairway Estate”) and took exclusive jurisdiction of Fairway “and all of its assets and property, of whatever kind and…”
United States v. Royal Bus. Funds Corp., 724 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “It also brought this action under 15 U.S.C. § 687c, alleging violations of the Small Business Investment Act and regulations promulgated thereunder and requesting the appointment of a receiver.”
United States of Am. & Mortimer Todel, as Receiver of the Funds, Assets & Prop. of Roosevelt Capital Corp. v. Franklin Nat'l Bank, 512 F.2d 245 (2d Cir. 1975). · cites it 5× “§ 1345 and 15 U.S.C. § 687c for plaintiff United States and 28 U.”
United States v. Vanguard Inv. Co., Inc., 667 F. Supp. 257 (M.D.N.C. 1987). · cites it 7× “However, because Vanguard chose to act without authority and in violation of the TRO-receivership, its purported petition is without legal effect.”
United States of Am., Small Bus. Admin., Truduax Corp., Claimant-Appellant v. Vanguard Inv. Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “Vanguard is a corporation being wound up on order of the district court pursuant to the relevant provision of the Small Business Investment Act (SBIA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 687c. In the claims filing phase of that proceeding, Trudaux sought classification as a creditor of Vanguard,…”
U.S. Small Bus. Admin. Funding Corp. v. Feinsod, 347 F. Supp. 3d 147 (E.D.N.Y 2018). “By Order dated April 24, 2013, the Court appointed the SBA as receiver of Elk pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 687c, and entered judgment in favor of the SBA for the amount of the loans outstanding, which totaled over $20 million.”
United States v. Royal Bus. Funds Corp., 29 B.R. 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). · cites it 3× “It is for precisely this purpose that the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over Royal under its July 15 Order and under 15 U.S.C. § 687c. Although the affidavits submitted by Royal on the instant motion recite the unfair treatment it is allegedly receiving at the hands of…”
United States v. ESIC Capital, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 483 (D. Maryland 1988). · cites it 2× “This Court is empowered, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 687c(b), to “take exclusive jurisdiction of .”
Small Bus. Admin. v. Echevarria, 864 F. Supp. 1254 (S.D. Fla. 1994). “; 15 U.S.C. § 687c(b). The doctrine of ultra vires states that a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful and void.”
United States v. Norwood Capital Corp., 273 F. Supp. 236 (D.S.C. 1967). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 687c. Injunctions and other orders-Grounds; jurisdiction of court; preferred causes, (a) Whenever, in the judgment of the Administration, a licensee or any other person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a…”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— 15 U.S.C. § 687c(a) — 6 cases
United States v. Acorn Tech. Fund, L.P. Leonard Barrack & Lynne Barrack, 429 F.3d 438 (3rd Cir. 2005). “The District Court appointed the SBA receiver on January 17, 2003, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 687c. As part of the receivership order, the District Court imposed a stay on all civil litigation “involving Acorn, the Receiver, or any of Acorn’s past or present officers,…”
United States of Am. & Mortimer Todel, as Receiver of the Funds, Assets & Prop. of Roosevelt Capital Corp. v. Franklin Nat'l Bank, 512 F.2d 245 (2d Cir. 1975). “§ 1345 and 15 U.S.C. § 687c for plaintiff United States and 28 U.”
United States v. Vanguard Inv. Co., Inc., 694 F. Supp. 1219 (M.D.N.C. 1988).
United States v. Marathon Inv. Partners, LP, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2005).
Leigh King Norton & Underwood LLC v. Regions Fin. Corp. (N.D. Ala. 2020).
— 15 U.S.C. § 687c(b) — 10 cases
United States v. Fairway Capital Corp., 483 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2007). “Here, the importance of the Territorial Court’s quasi in rem jurisdiction is diminished by the fact that 15 U.S.C. § 687c(b) gives a district court “exclusive jurisdiction” over the property of an SBA receivership estate.”
United States of Am. & Mortimer Todel, as Receiver of the Funds, Assets & Prop. of Roosevelt Capital Corp. v. Franklin Nat'l Bank, 512 F.2d 245 (2d Cir. 1975). “§ 1345 and 15 U.S.C. § 687c for plaintiff United States and 28 U.”
United States v. Royal Bus. Funds Corp., 29 B.R. 777 (S.D.N.Y. 1983). “It is for precisely this purpose that the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over Royal under its July 15 Order and under 15 U.S.C. § 687c. Although the affidavits submitted by Royal on the instant motion recite the unfair treatment it is allegedly receiving at the hands of…”
United States v. ESIC Capital, Inc., 685 F. Supp. 483 (D. Maryland 1988). “This Court is empowered, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 687c(b), to “take exclusive jurisdiction of .”
United States of Am., Small Bus. Admin., Truduax Corp., Claimant-Appellant v. Vanguard Inv. Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 1993). “Vanguard is a corporation being wound up on order of the district court pursuant to the relevant provision of the Small Business Investment Act (SBIA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 687c. In the claims filing phase of that proceeding, Trudaux sought classification as a creditor of Vanguard,…”
— 15 U.S.C. § 687c(c) — 2 cases
United States of Am. & Mortimer Todel, as Receiver of the Funds, Assets & Prop. of Roosevelt Capital Corp. v. Franklin Nat'l Bank, 512 F.2d 245 (2d Cir. 1975). “§ 1345 and 15 U.S.C. § 687c for plaintiff United States and 28 U.”
United States v. Marathon Inv. Partners, LP, 399 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. Mass. 2005).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.